The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: train on 19 Jun 2010 07:41 On Jun 19, 1:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:81c945d7-ef5d-4905-bc17-ff691d4025fd(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:3f27a5b2-6fe9-4f52-9d45-033de8e4f473(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 19, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> colp wrote: > >> >> > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for you > >> >> > to > >> >> > identify the errors in the article. > > >> >> The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math of > >> >> SR. > > >> > That isn't necessarily an error. Can you show how their math resulted > >> > in coming to an incorrect conclusion? > > >> >> Instead > >> >> they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run > >> >> slow" -- SR > >> >> does NOT say that; > > >> > The truth is not determined by what SR says > > >> The truth about what SR says IS determinets by what SR says > > > Circular reasoning. > > Nope. Your LACK of reasoning. You say the truth of SR is determined by > what SR does NOT say. SR does NOT say the twins are less than each other > over the whole experiment .. it says they have the same ages. Even if the twins both show the same age after te symmetric travel, I made the point earlier that twin A has moved relative to twin B and twin B has moved relative to twin A. When realtive motion occurs, time dilation occurs. The additional paradox is how can both twins show the same age when relative movement between them has occurred? Acceleration? put a value a for the time dilation during acceleration, and by symmetry in cancels out. 1. If relative motion occurs between two clocks, there is no difference between their times when the relative motion between them becomes zero or 2. If relative motion occurs between two clocks, when they are brought together when the relative motion between them becomes zero they show the same time ( oh yes there are special case symmetric etc) Which one is it? or 3. There is no answer T
From: Tom Roberts on 19 Jun 2010 09:11 colp wrote: > truth: SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > truth: In no case does SR predict that a twin observes the other to > age more quickly. > > inference: SR predicts that each twin will younger than the other at > the end of the experiment. All three of those are wrong. You MUST learn what SR ACTUALLY says. That requires STUDY, not wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Tom Roberts
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 09:06 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8848af8d-c47c-4d28-b572-cfd072537de9(a)s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 1:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:81c945d7-ef5d-4905-bc17-ff691d4025fd(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 7:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:3f27a5b2-6fe9-4f52-9d45-033de8e4f473(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 19, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> colp wrote: >> >> >> > It is not necessary for me to showing you the math in order for >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > identify the errors in the article. >> >> >> >> The basic error in that article is that they DID NOT use the math >> >> >> of >> >> >> SR. >> >> >> > That isn't necessarily an error. Can you show how their math >> >> > resulted >> >> > in coming to an incorrect conclusion? >> >> >> >> Instead >> >> >> they used a comic-book description of SR such as "moving clocks run >> >> >> slow" -- SR >> >> >> does NOT say that; >> >> >> > The truth is not determined by what SR says >> >> >> The truth about what SR says IS determinets by what SR says >> >> > Circular reasoning. >> >> Nope. Your LACK of reasoning. You say the truth of SR is determined by >> what SR does NOT say. SR does NOT say the twins are less than each other >> over the whole experiment .. it says they have the same ages. > > Even if the twins both show the same age after te symmetric travel, I > made the point earlier that twin A has moved relative to twin B and > twin B has moved relative to twin A. Of course they have > When realtive motion occurs, time > dilation occurs. Yeup > The additional paradox is > > how can both twins show the same age when relative movement between > them has occurred? Same way as one twin can be younger than the other in the usual twins paradox. > Acceleration? Yes. . or more exactly .. chagne of rest inertial frame > put a value a for the time dilation during acceleration, > and by symmetry in cancels out. Yes .. the symmetrical change in frame cancels out the time dilation > 1. If relative motion occurs between two clocks, there is no > difference between their times when the relative motion between them > becomes zero It depends on what happens in-between > or > > 2. If relative motion occurs between two clocks, when they are brought > together when the relative motion between them becomes zero they show > the same time ( oh yes there are special case symmetric etc) It depends on what happens in-between > Which one is it? > > or > > 3. There is no answer No single answer as you propose. What happens depends on the velocity profiles of the two clocks between the events in question.
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 09:11 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > snip >> >> In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented >> experimentally, and >> the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not >> been >> implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a >> straightforward >> extension of the usual one. >> >> > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to >> > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based >> > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical >> > experimentation! >> >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm >> various >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. of course. . That's the idea. You make predictions with the theory and THEN you test them > So was Einstein clairvoyant? No .. he did physics > Therefore I stand on my proposition that Einstein based SR and GR > on gedankens, not empirical experiments. No .. he based them on empircal results .. and then made predictions based on it that could be further tested. That's good science. > Hell, it's not hard to refute, and find where and when the Classical > Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not correlate to > what really happens, whether during experiments or not. Mainline science doesn't use classical Newtonian Mechanics .. except as an approximation at relatively low speeds and similar gravitational potentials > Mainline science has what Newton wrote and presented in Principia > so screwed up that the applied scientists and engineers pay little > heed to what is written the physics texts. > They pay attention to, and study only the texts books of their > particular fields of endeavor. > > This applies to both SR and GR, as well as Classical Newtonian > Mechanics. >> >> >> In particular, there are several experiments that DIRECTLY implement the >> "twin >> paradox", and which confirm the prediction of SR. >> >> The experiment by Bailey et al is a particularly appropriate one. >> > I am not sure to which experiment you refer. > If you are referring to the cosmic ray muon experiments, you do > not seem to accept that it was these 'modern' experiment > during the 1960s (not the original by Rossi and Hall in > 1940-1941) that prompted relativists to come up with the idea of > relativistic time dilation (i.e., dilated time) to replace Einstein's > notion of time contraction. Nonsense. It didn't change the theory at all. Just confirmed it. Einstein had time DILATION (when measuring the ticking of a moving clock).. not contraction. Where did you make up that nonsense? [snip further nonsense .. read enough]
From: Tom Roberts on 19 Jun 2010 09:22
kado(a)nventure.com wrote: > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical >>> experimentation! >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether. See the introductory material in the link I posted. > Hell, it's not hard to refute, and find where and when the Classical > Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not correlate to > what really happens, whether during experiments or not. > Mainline science has what Newton wrote and presented in Principia > so screwed up that the applied scientists and engineers pay little > heed to what is written the physics texts. > They pay attention to, and study only the texts books of their > particular fields of endeavor. > > This applies to both SR and GR, as well as Classical Newtonian > Mechanics. Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. >> In particular, there are several experiments that DIRECTLY implement the "twin >> paradox", and which confirm the prediction of SR. >> >> The experiment by Bailey et al is a particularly appropriate one. >> > I am not sure to which experiment you refer. So go to the link I gave and search for "Bailey". If you need to be spoon-fed like this, you have A LOT of studying to do. > If you are referring to the cosmic ray muon experiments, I'm not. You need to READ what I wrote. The experiment by Bailey et al is referenced in the section "Tests of the Twin Paradox". READ THEIR PAPER and you'll see this is not cosmic rays.... > [... further nonsense and insults] Tom Roberts |